58 Cal.4th 300 Supreme Court of California

Richard SANDER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. S194951. Dec. 19, 2013.

Synopsis(Background:!Researcher!and!open!government!organization!petitioned!for!writ!of!mandate!challenging!the!denial!of!their!request!to!the!State!Bar!of!California!for!disclosure!of!bar!admissions!records.!The!Superior!Court,!City!and!County!of!San!Francisco,!No.!CPF–08–508880,!Curtis!E.A.!Karnow,!J.,!denied!the!petition.!Researcher!and!organization!appealed,!and!the!Court!of!Appeal!reversed!and!remanded.!The!Supreme!Court!granted!review,!superseding!the!opinion!of!the!Court!of!Appeal.!Holdings:!The!Supreme!Court,!Cantil–Sakauye,!C.J.,!held!that:!1!State!Bar!rules!did!not!prevent!disclosureN!2!public!interest!in!disclosure!was!sufficient!to!mandate!access!subject!to!any!countervailing!interestsN!and!3!promises!of!confidentiality!did!not,!as!a!matter!of!law,!prohibit!disclosure.!Affirmed!and!remanded!with!directions.!Sander'v.'State'Bar'of'California,!126!Cal.Rptr.3d!330,!superseded.!Opinion(CANTIL–SAKAUYE,!C.J.!*304!**491!Plaintiffs!Richard!Sander,!Joe!Hicks,!and!the!(California)!First!Amendment!Coalition!requested!that!the!State!Bar!of!California!(State!Bar)!provide!them!access!to!information!contained!in!its!bar!admissions!database,!including!applicants'!bar!exam!scores,!law!schools!attended,!grade!point!averages,!Law!School!Admissions!Test!scores,!and!race!or!ethnicity.!Plaintiff!Sander!sought!this!information!in!order!to!conduct!research!on!racial!and!ethnic!disparities!in!bar!passage!rates!and!law!school!grades.!The!question!presented!is!whether!any!law!requires!disclosure!of!the!State!Bar's!admissions!database!on!bar!applicants.!We!conclude!that!under!the!common!law!right!of!public!access,!there!is!a!sufficient!public!interest!in!the!information!contained!in!the!admissions!database!such!that!the!State!Bar!is!required!to!provide!access!to!it!if!the!information!can!be!provided!in!a!form!that!protects!the!privacy!of!applicants!and!if!no!countervailing!interest!

outweighs!the!public's!interest!in!disclosure.!Because!the!trial!court!concluded!that!there!was!no!legal!basis!for!requiring!disclosure!of!the!admissions!database,!the!parties!did!not!litigate,!and!the!trial!court!did!not!decide,!whether!and!how!the!admissions!database!might!be!redacted!or!otherwise!modified!to!protect!applicants'!privacy!and!whether!any!countervailing!interests!weigh!in!favor!of!nondisclosure.!Consequently,!the!Court!of!Appeal!will!be!directed!to!remand!the!case!to!the!trial!court.!I.(FACTS!The!State!Bar!is!a!“public!corporation”!of!which!every!person!licensed!to!practice!law!in!the!state!is!a!member.!(Cal.!Const.,!art.!VI,!§!9.)!The!State!Bar!*305!serves!“as!an!administrative!arm!of!this!court!for!the!purpose!of!assisting!in!matters!of!admission!***254!and!discipline!of!attorneys.”!(Emslie'v.'State'Bar!(1974)!11!Cal.3d!210,!224,!113!Cal.Rptr.!175,!520!P.2d!991.)!The!State!Bar's!Committee!of!Bar!Examiners!administers!the!requirements!for!admission!to!the!bar,!including!the!bar!examination!and!the!assessment!of!applicants'!moral!character,!and!certifies!to!this!court!those!applicants!who!satisfy!the!requirements.!**492!(In're'Menna!(1995)!11!Cal.4th!975,!985,!47!Cal.Rptr.2d!2,!905!P.2d!944N!Bus.!&!Prof.Code,!§§!6046,!6064.)!This!court!has!the!sole!authority!to!grant!or!deny!admission!to!practice!law,!but!it!accords!great!deference!to!the!recommendation!of!the!State!Bar.!(See!Preston'v.'State'Bar!(1946)!28!Cal.2d!643,!650,!171!P.2d!435N!In're'Petition'of'Lacey!(1938)!11!Cal.2d!699,!701,!81!P.2d!935.)!The!State!Bar!maintains!an!admissions!database!that!includes!information!on!approximately!246,000!applicants!who!applied!to!take!the!California!bar!examination!from!1972!through!2007.!The!files!in!this!database!generally!include!information!obtained!from!applicants!through!the!admissions!process—including!race!or!ethnicity,!law!school!attended!and!year!of!graduation,!and!Law!School!Admissions!Test!(LSAT)!score—and!information!regarding!the!applicant's!performance!on!the!bar!exam—including!whether!the!applicant!applied!for,!took,!passed!or!failed!the!bar!exam,!and!the!applicant's!scores!on!the!bar!exam.!Some!of!the!files!also!include!the!applicant's!law!school!grade!point!average,!but!the!bar!stopped!collecting!that!data!about!10!years!before!the!request!at!issue!here!was!made.!All!information!concerning!a!particular!applicant!is!identified!by!a!file!number!that!has!no!relationship!to!the!applicant's!name!or!personal!information.!Much!of!the!information!contained!in!the!admissions!database!is!obtained!through!the!application!process.!Every!applicant!signs!a!form!authorizing!any!educational!or!other!institutions!to!release!to!the!State!Bar!all!records!or!transcripts!related!to!the!applicant!that!the!State!Bar!seeks!in!connection!

with!the!application,!including!his!or!her!law!school!transcripts.!It!also!authorizes!the!State!Bar!to!transmit!the!applicant's!scores!on!the!bar!exam!to!his!or!her!law!school.!Applicants!additionally!complete!an!“ethnic!survey.”!The!survey!form!states!that!the!information!regarding!the!applicant's!ethnicity!is!sought!“to!assist!in!the!continuing!evaluation!of!the!examination”!and!that!it!“will!be!treated!in!a!confidential!manner!and!will!be!used!only!for!research!purposes.!It!will!not!be!retained!by!the!Committee!as!part!of!your!application.”!The!State!Bar!regularly!publishes!the!names!of!those!who!pass!the!bar!exam.!Using!the!admissions!database,!it!also!prepares!and!publishes!a!number!of!reports!regarding!the!California!bar!exam.!After!each!bar!exam,!it!prepares!a!statistical!analysis!of!the!bar!exam!that!reports!the!passage!rates!for!various!categories!of!applicants,!including!type!of!law!school!attended!(such!as!ABA!*306!accredited!or!unaccredited),!particular!law!school!attended,!firstgtime!takers!and!repeaters,!ethnic!group,!and!sex.!The!State!Bar!also!has!undertaken!and!reported!numerous!studies!on!particular!topics!related!to!the!bar!exam,!including!the!discrepancy!in!passage!rates!among!racial/ethnic!groups!and!whether!bar!exam!scores!are!affected!by!law!school!admissions!practices!related!to!race!and!ethnicity.1!These!reports!are!***255!available!to!the!public.!Except!through!its!reports,!the!State!Bar!has!not!made!the!information!in!its!database!available!to!any!other!entity!without!the!consent!of!applicants,!with!one!exception.!At!the!request!of!the!Chief!Justice,!in!1990!and!1992,!it!provided!information!identifying!individual!applicants!and!their!bar!exam!scores!and!law!schools!to!the!Law!School!Admission!Council2!for!a!national!study!on!the!relationship!between!law!school!performance!and!performance!on!the!bar!exam.!In!2006,!Professor!Richard!Sander,!of!the!University!of!California,!Los!Angeles!School!of!Law,!proposed!to!collaborate!with!the!State!Bar!on!research!regarding!racial!disparities!in!bar!passage!rates!and!law!school!grades.!Sander's!hypothesis!is!that!these!asserted!disparities!might!be!affected!by!racial!preferences!in!law!school!admissions!**493!that,!according!to!his!theory,!result!in!a!“mismatch”!between!the!minority!student's!qualifications!and!the!level!of!instruction!at!the!law!school!attended.!The!State!Bar's!Committee!of!Bar!Examiners!rejected!Sander's!proposal!and!the!Board!of!Governors!confirmed!that!decision.!Subsequently,!Sander!submitted!to!the!State!Bar!a!request!for!the!release!of!records!in!the!database!regarding!applicants'!race,!ethnicity,!law!school,!year!of!law!school!graduation,!whether!the!applicant!was!a!transfer!student,!bar!examination!scores,!whether!the!applicant!passed!the!exam,!

law!school!grade!point!average!(GPA),!LSAT!score,!and!undergraduate!GPA.!Sander!sought!the!information!with!any!identifying!information!about!individual!applicants!redacted.!The!California!First!Amendment!Coalition!submitted!a!request!to!the!State!Bar!to!inspect!or!receive!copies!of!the!same!data!requested!by!Sander.!The!request!was!reviewed!by!the!State!Bar's!Committee!of!Bar!Examiners,!which!rejected!it,!citing,!among!other!things,!privacy!concerns.!Sander,!joined!by!the!First!Amendment!Coalition,!submitted!a!revised!formal!request!for!public!information,!citing!article!I!of!the!California!Constitution,!the!common!law!right!of!access!to!public!records,!and!the!*307!California!Public!Records!Act!(Gov.Code,!§!6250!et!seq.).!This!request!sought!the!same!information,!but!proposed!additional!means!for!addressing!the!State!Bar's!privacy!concerns.!It!proposed,!among!other!things,!that!certain!types!of!data!be!“clustered”!to!make!it!more!difficult!to!combine!the!information!in!the!database!with!information!available!from!public!sources!to!deduce!an!individual's!identity.!The!proposal!to!“cluster”!data!addressed!concerns!that!if!there!were!a!small!number!of!individuals!in!a!particular!category!or!“cell”!it!would!arguably!be!easy!to!identify!them.!“For!example,!suppose!that!a!law!school!had!only!one!Native!American!student!in!its!2001!graduating!class.!Disclosing!an!individualglevel!database!that!included!information!on!law!school,!year!of!graduation,!and!detailed!race!(including!‘Native!American’!as!a!category)!would!make!it!possible!for!a!diligent!member!of!the!public!to!deduce!this!student's!identity,!and!thereby!know!that!the!other!information!in!the!database!applied!to!him!or!her.”!The!revised!request!would!reduce!the!likelihood!of!such!identification!by!requiring!the!State!Bar!to!cluster!data!so!that!individuals!are!associated!with!a!category!of!law!school!rather!than!with!a!particular!law!school!and!with!a!range!of!years!of!graduation!rather!than!a!particular!year.!Race!would!be!reported!in!only!four!broad!categories—White,!Hispanic,!Black,!and!other.!Furthermore,!if!***256!any!“cell”!contained!fewer!than!five!individuals,!data!would!be!further!clustered.!Sander!offered!to!pay!any!reasonable!costs!incurred!by!the!State!Bar!in!complying!with!the!request.!The!request!was!denied.!Believing!that!this!court!might!have!exclusive!jurisdiction!in!the!matter,!Sander!and!the!First!Amendment!Coalition!(hereafter,!collectively,!plaintiffs)!initially!filed!a!petition!for!writ!of!mandamus!with!this!court.!We!denied!the!petition!without!prejudice!to!refiling!in!an!appropriate!court.!Plaintiffs!then!filed!a!petition!for!writ!of!mandate!in!the!superior!court,!seeking!to!compel!the!State!Bar!to!provide!the!records.!II.(PROCEEDINGS(BELOW!

By!stipulation!of!the!parties,!proceedings!in!the!superior!court!were!divided!into!two!phases.!The!first!phase!addressed!whether!the!State!Bar!has!any!legal!duty!to!produce!the!requested!records.!The!second!phase!would!address!“whether!provision!of!the!requested!records!to![plaintiffs]!would!violate!the!privacy!of!any!person!and!...!whether!the!cost!or!burden!of!manipulation,!reproduction,!or!disclosure!of!the!requested!records!that!may!be!entailed!by![plaintiffs']!request!provide!a!basis!for!denying!or!limiting!disclosure.”!After!trial!of!the!first!phase!based!on!declarations!and!stipulated!facts,!the!trial!court!concluded!that!no!law!required!the!State!Bar!to!disclose!the!records!in!the!admissions!database.!It!rejected!plaintiffs'!argument!that!disclosure!was!required!under!the!state!common!law.!The!trial!court!concluded!that!the!common!law!right!of!access!to!judicial!branch!records!was!limited!to!court!*308!records!of!adjudicatory!proceedings,!that!is,!to!“judicial!record[s]”!as!defined!in!Code!of!Civil!Procedure,!section!1904—“the!record!or!official!entry!of!the!proceedings!in!**494!a!court!of!justice,!or!of!the!official!act!of!a!judicial!officer,!in!an!action!or!special!proceeding.”!The!trial!court!also!rejected!plaintiffs'!argument!that!disclosure!was!required!under!Proposition!59,!a!2004!ballot!measure!that!amended!the!state!Constitution!to!include!a!right!of!public!access!to!“the!writings!of!public!officials.”!(Cal.!Const.,!art.!I,!§!3,!subd.!(b)(1).)!It!concluded!that!Proposition!59!did!not!create!any!new!substantive!rights,!but!simply!constitutionalized!existing!rights!of!access.!In!light!of!these!conclusions,!the!trial!court!did!not!reach!the!question!whether!plaintiffs!were!seeking!the!production!of!a!“new”!record!that!was!not!required!under!public!access!laws.!The!trial!court!concluded!it!was!unnecessary!to!resolve!that!issue,!and!in!any!event!the!record!was!insufficient.!It!recognized!that!“[i]n!the!context!of!digital!data,!it!does!not!make!much!sense!to!consider!simply!whether!a!document!demand!requires!the!creation!of!a!‘new’!document!since!every!production!of!electronically!stored!data!literally!creates!a!‘new’!document!on!screen,!on!paper,!or!in!a!‘new’!digital!file.”!To!determine!what!constitutes!the!creation!of!a!new!file!would!require!consideration!of!the!complexity!of!the!tasks!required!to!produce!the!data!requested,!a!matter!that!could!not!be!determined!without!expert!declarations.!The!trial!court!denied!the!petition!without!reaching!the!privacy!issues!that!had!been!reserved!for!the!second!phase.!The!Court!of!Appeal!reversed,!holding!that!the!common!law!right!of!access!to!public!records!created!a!presumption!that!the!records!in!the!State!Bar's!admissions!database!must!be!disclosed,!subject!to!a!determination!

concerning!whether!the!public's!interest!in!disclosure!is!outweighed!by!the!privacy!interests!implicated!by!disclosure!or!other!countervailing!public!policy!concerns.!The!Court!of!Appeal!concluded!that!the!common!law!right!***257!of!public!access,!as!applicable!to!the!judicial!branch,!is!not!limited!to!court!adjudicatory!records.!It!recognized!a!“parallel,!but!distinct”!right!of!access!based!on!the!First!Amendment!right!to!open!trials,!which!is!limited!to!records!of!adjudicatory!proceedings.!(See!NBC'Subsidiary'(KNBC–TV),'Inc.'v.'Superior'Court!(1999)!20!Cal.4th!1178,!1198–1209!&!fn.!25,!86!Cal.Rptr.2d!778,!980!P.2d!337!(NBC'Subsidiary!).)!It!concluded,!however,!that!California!had!long!recognized!a!broader!common!law!right!of!access!that!applies!to!all!three!branches!of!government!and!is!not!limited!to!adjudicatory!records.!Under!the!common!law,!the!Court!of!Appeal!concluded,!“!‘where!there!is!no!contrary!statute!or!countervailing!public!policy,!the!right!to!inspect!public!records!must!be!freely!allowed.’!”!(Craemer'v.'Superior'Court!(1968)!265!Cal.App.2d!216,!222,!71!Cal.Rptr.!193!(Craemer!).)!It!held!that!because!the!*309!“Bar!is!a!public!corporation!and!the!records!sought!relate!to!its!official!function!of!administering!the!bar!exam,!a!matter!of!legitimate!public!interest,”!the!database!was!presumptively!open!to!public!access,!“subject!to!balancing!against!the!private!interests!implicated!by!disclosure.”!In!accordance!with!the!parties'!stipulation!that!the!case!would!be!tried!in!two!phases,!the!Court!of!Appeal!reversed!and!remanded!for!further!proceedings!in!the!trial!court!to!consider!and!weigh!any!countervailing!policy!considerations!against!the!presumption!of!public!access.!The!Court!of!Appeal!declined!to!decide!whether!providing!the!requested!information!would!involve!the!creation!of!a!new!record!because!the!trial!court!had!concluded!that!the!record!was!not!adequate!to!resolve!that!question.!We!granted!review.!III.(DISCUSSION!As!explained!below,!no!statute!or!rule!resolves!the!question!before!us.!We!conclude,!nevertheless,!that!under!common!law!principles!there!is!a!public!interest!in!access!to!the!State!Bar's!admissions!database!that!will!require!the!State!Bar!to!disclose!the!requested!information!if!it!can!be!applied!in!a!form!that!does!not!violate!the!privacy!of!applicants!and!if!other!considerations!do!not!warrant!nondisclosure.!A.(Public(Access(Laws!The!California!Public!Records!Act!(Gov.Code,!§!6250!et!seq.N!CPRA),!governs!requests!for!the!records!of!most!public!agencies,!but!it!does!not!apply!to!the!judicial!branch.!The!definition!of!state!agencies!to!**495!which!its!provisions!apply!excludes!“those!agencies!provided!for!in!...!Article!VI!of!the!California!Constitution.”!(Gov.Code,!§!6252,!subd.!(f).)!The!CPRA!

requires!those!agencies!provided!for!in!article!VI!to!make!available!to!the!public!only!“an!itemized!statement!of!the!total!expenditures!and!disbursement”!of!the!agency.!(Gov.Code,!§!6261.)!Article!VI!of!the!state!Constitution!establishes!the!courts!and!the!State!Bar,!as!well!as!the!Judicial!Council,!the!Commission!on!Judicial!Appointments,!and!the!Commission!on!Judicial!Performance.!(Cal.!Const.,!art.!VI,!§§!1–9.)!Thus,!these!entities!are!exempt!from!most!provisions!of!the!CPRA.!1!A!variety!of!other!authorities,!however,!address!access!to!the!records!of!judicial!branch!entities,!including!the!courts!and!the!State!Bar.!Article!I,!section!3,!subdivision!(b)!of!the!state!Constitution,!adopted!by!initiative!in!2004!(Prop.!59),!addresses!“the!right!of!access!to!information!concerning!the!conduct!of!the!people's!business.”!(Cal.!Const.,!art.!I,!§!3,!subd.!(b)(1).)!More!specifically,!access!to!court!records!is!governed!by!longgstanding!common!law!principles!as!well!as!constitutional!principles!derived!from!the!First!Amendment!right!of!public!access!to!trials.!(See!*310!***258!NBC'Subsidiary,'supra,!20!al.4th!at!p.!1208,!fn.!25,!86!Cal.Rptr.2d!778,!980!P.2d!337N!Copley'Press,'Inc.'v.'Superior'Court!(1992)!6!Cal.App.4th!106,!7!Cal.Rptr.2d!841!(Copley'Press!).)!Recently!adopted!rules!of!court!govern!access!to!the!administrative!records!of!the!courts,!the!Judicial!Council,!and!the!Administrative!Office!of!the!Courts.!(See!Cal.!Rules!of!Court,!rule!10.500(c)(3).)!The!State!Bar!is!subject!to!the!State!Bar!Act!(Bus.!&!Prof.!Code,!§!6000!et!seq.),!which!contains!numerous!statutes!that!make!various!of!its!activities!and!records!public!and!others!confidential.!(See!Bus.!&!Prof.Code,!§!6000!et!seq.)3!It!is!also!subject!to!rules!adopted!by!its!governing!body,!which!was,!at!the!time!that!plaintiffs!made!their!request,!the!Board!of!Governors!and!is!now!called!the!Board!of!Trustees!(hereafter,!the!Board).4!The!Board!was!authorized!to,!among!other!things,!adopt!rules!“necessary!or!expedient”!for!the!carrying!out!of!the!State!Bar's!responsibilities.!(Bus.!&!Prof.Code,!§!6025.)!B.(Statutes(and(Rules(Applicable(to(the(State(Bar!As!a!preliminary!matter,!we!conclude!that!the!statutes!and!rules!specifically!applicable!to!the!State!Bar!neither!demand!nor!prohibit!the!access!to!the!State!Bar's!admissions!database!that!plaintiffs!seek,!although!they!do!confirm!that!members!and!applicants!have!some!expectation!of!privacy!in!their!records.!Under!the!State!Bar!Act,!the!State!Bar!must!make!available!to!the!public,!in!addition!to!the!financial!information!specified!in!Government!Code!section!6261,!part!of!the!CPRA,!“the!classification!and!total!annual!compensation!paid!to!each!of!its!employees!by!name,”!as!well!as!its!policies!regarding!employee!benefits!and!compensation.!(Bus.!&!

Prof.Code,!§!6001.4.)!The!meetings!of!the!Board!are!open!to!the!public,!with!specified!exceptions.!(Bus.!&!Prof.Code,!§!6026.5.)!The!bar!must!maintain!official!membership!records.!(Bus.!&!Prof.Code,!§!6002.1,!subd.!(a).)!An!unsuccessful!applicant!has!the!right!to!inspect!his!or!her!examination!papers,!and!the!grading!of!those!papers.!(Bus.!&!Prof.Code,!§!6065,!subd.!(a).)!Bar!members!have!the!right,!however,!to!limit!the!disclosure!of!their!information!“not!reasonably!related!to!regulatory!purposes.”!(Bus.!&!Prof.Code,!§!6001.)!The!“investigations!or!proceedings!conducted!by!the!State!Bar!concerning!the!moral!character!of!an!applicant!shall!be!confidential!unless!the!*311!applicant,!in!writing,!waives!the!confidentiality.”!**496!(Bus.!&!Prof.Code,!§!6060.2.)!Any!“demographic!data!collected”!by!the!State!Bar!about!its!members!“shall!be!used!only!for!general!purposes!and!shall!not!be!identified!to!any!individual!member!or!his!or!her!State!Bar!record.”!(Bus.!&!Prof.Code,!§!6009.5.)!Rules!adopted!by!the!Board!require!public!access!to!a!number!of!State!Bar!records.!For!example,!each!member's!name,!bar!number,!current!address,!telephone!number,!egmail!address,!date!of!admission!***259!in!California!and!other!jurisdictions,!membership!status,!and!date!of!any!discipline!imposed,!is!available!to!the!public.!(Rules!of!State!Bar,!tit.!2,!rule!2.2.)!The!State!Bar's!Committee!of!Bar!Examiners!is!authorized!to!“publish!statistics!for!each!examination!in!accordance!with!its!policies.”!(Rules!of!State!Bar,!tit.!4,!rule!4.7.)!2!Only!one!State!Bar!rule!is!arguably!relevant!here.!The!State!Bar!suggests!that!rule!4.4!prohibits!public!disclosure!of!its!admissions!database.!Rule!4.4!makes!the!records!of!applicants!for!bar!membership!confidential!“unless!required!to!be!disclosed!by!law!...!or!authorized!by!the!applicant!in!writing!for!release!to!others.”!(Rules!of!State!Bar,!tit.!4,!rule!4.4,!fn.!omitted!(hereafter!rule!4.4).)!This!rule!does!not!require!that!plaintiffs'!request!for!access!to!the!database!be!denied.!Rule!4.4!does!not!define!“applicant!records.”!As!noted!above,!the!admissions!database!at!issue!in!this!case!is!an!electronic!record!of!information!about!each!applicant's!performance!on!the!bar!exam!and!data!about!each!applicant!obtained!by!the!State!Bar!in!the!application!process.!Although!the!admissions!database!reasonably!comes!within!the!term!“applicant!records,”!plaintiffs!have!requested!the!information!in!a!“degidentified”!form,!that!is,!without!applicant!names!or!other!information!that!could!be!used!to!identify!an!individual.!Assuming,!for!purposes!of!discussion,!that!the!records!in!the!admissions!database!may!effectively!be!

deidentified,!such!deidentified!records!do!not!constitute!“applicant!records”!to!which!public!access!would!be!prohibited!under!the!rule.!The!apparent!purposes!of!rule!4.4!are!to!protect!applicants'!privacy!interests!and!the!State!Bar's!ability!to!collect!the!information!it!needs!to!evaluate!applicants,!which!it!does!under!a!promise!of!confidentiality.!If!the!applicant!cannot!be!identified,!disclosure!of!information!does!not!impair!his!or!her!privacy!interests!and!the!prospect!of!such!disclosure!is!unlikely!to!affect!the!bar's!ability!to!obtain!the!information!it!needs.!(Cf.!Osborn'v.'Bd.'of'Regents!(2002)!254!Wis.2d!266,!647!N.W.2d!158,!168,!fn.!11![under!federal!Family!Educational!Rights!and!Privacy!Act,!“once!personally!identifiable!information!is!deleted,!by!definition,!a!record!is!no!longer!an!education!record!since!it!is!no!longer!directly!related!to!a!student”].)!Indeed,!as!noted!earlier,!the!State!Bar!itself!regularly!*312!publishes!statistical!reports!on!bar!exam!passage!rates,!broken!down!by!race,!gender,!and!law!school!attended,!in!a!form!that!does!not!identify!individual!applicants.!Thus,!in!practice,!the!State!Bar!does!not!interpret!its!rule!as!requiring!that!deidentified!information!from!applicant!records!be!kept!completely!confidential.!The!most!reasonable!construction!of!rule!4.4!is!that!it!preserves!the!confidentiality!of!applicant!records!that!connect!particular!information!about!an!applicant!with!the!applicant's!name!or!other!identifying!information.!This!construction!of!rule!4.4!is!consistent!with!the!approach!used!in!laws!governing!information!similar!to!that!sought!here—including!LSAT!scores!and!academic!records—in!other!contexts.!A!testing!agency!that!administers!tests!used!for!purposes!of!admission!to!postsecondary!educational!institutions—including!the!Law!School!Admission!Council,!which!administers!the!LSAT—may!not!disclose!an!individual's!test!score!without!the!individual's!authorization.!(Ed.Code,!§!99161,!subd.!(a).)!Such!an!agency,!however,!“may!release!test!scores!and!other!information!in!a!form!which!does!not!identify!any!individual!test!subject!for!purposes!of!research,!studies,!and!reports!primarily!concerning!the!test!itself.”!(Ed.Code,!§!99161,!subd.!(b).)!***260!Similarly,!the!records!of!elementary!and!secondary!school!pupils!are!confidential!and!may!be!released!only!in!limited!circumstances!(Ed.Code,!§!49076),!but!a!school!district!is!not!prohibited!“from!providing,!in!its!discretion,!statistical!data!from!which!no!pupil!**497!may!be!identified!to!any!public!agency!or!entity!or!private!nonprofit!college,!university,!or!educational!research!and!development!organization!when!such!actions!would!be!in!the!best!educational!interests!of!pupils.”!(Ed.Code,!§!49074.)!Under!the!federal!law!applicable!to!educational!institutions!receiving!federal!

funds!(20!U.S.C.!§!1232g),!student!records!generally!may!not!be!disclosed!without!consent,!but!disclosure!without!consent!is!permitted!“after!the!removal!of!all!personally!identifiable!information!provided!that!the!educational!agency!or!institution!or!other!party!has!made!a!reasonable!determination!that!a!student's!identity!is!not!personally!identifiable,!whether!through!single!or!multiple!releases,!and!taking!into!account!other!reasonably!available!information.”!(34!C.F.R.!§!99.31(b)(1)!(2013).)!If!there!were!some!doubt!about!whether!rule!4.4!prohibits!public!access!to!the!State!Bar's!database!even!in!a!deidentified!form,!we!nevertheless!must!interpret!the!rule!in!light!of!article!I,!section!3,!subdivision!(b)!of!the!California!Constitution.!That!section!provides:!“(1)!The!people!have!the!right!of!access!to!information!concerning!the!conduct!of!the!people's!business,!and!therefore!...!the!writings!of!public!officials!and!agencies!shall!be!open!to!public!scrutiny.![¶]!(2)!A!statute,!court!rule,!or!other!authority!...!shall!be!*313!broadly!construed!if!it!furthers!the!people's!right!of!access,!and!narrowly!construed!if!it!limits!the!right!of!access.”!(Ibid.)!Although!the!State!Bar!contends!that!section!3,!subdivision!(b)(1)!does!not!create!any!substantive!rights!of!access!and!merely!“constitutionalizes”!existing!public!access!rights,!it!does!not!contend!that!the!rule!of!interpretation!contained!in!subdivision!(b)(2)!is!inapplicable!to!its!rules.!Consequently,!we!are!required!to!interpret!rule!4.4!narrowly.!Narrowly!interpreted,!rule!4.4!does!not!bar!release!of!the!deidentified!information!that!plaintiffs!seek.!C.(The(Common(Law(Right(of(Access(to(Public(Records!As!demonstrated!above,!the!statutes!and!rules!applicable!to!the!State!Bar!do!not!bar!plaintiffs'!request,!but!neither!do!they!specifically!require!disclosure.!We!turn!to!the!question!of!whether!the!common!law,!including!cases!interpreting!contemporary!statutory!language,!recognizes!a!right!of!public!access!to!the!records!requested!by!plaintiffs.!As!discussed!above,!the!Court!of!Appeal!concluded!that!the!common!law!establishes!a!presumptive!right!of!access!to!the!State!Bar's!admissions!database!“subject!to!balancing!against!the!private!interests!implicated!by!disclosure”!because!the!“Bar!is!a!public!corporation!and!the!records!sought!relate!to!its!official!function!of!administering!the!bar!exam,!a!matter!of!legitimate!public!interest.”!The!State!Bar!does!not!dispute!that!a!common!law!right!of!access!to!public!records!exists!or!that!this!right!applies!to!the!State!Bar.!(See!Chronicle'Pub.'Co.'v.'Superior'Court!(1960)!54!Cal.2d!548,!563,!7!Cal.Rptr.!109,!354!P.2d!637![State!Bar!and!its!officers!are!“public!officers”].)!However,!the!State!Bar!argues!that!the!common!law!applicable!to!all!public!entities—upon!which!the!Court!of!Appeal!relied—applies!only!to!records!that!officially!memorialize!or!record!government!action.!The!

State!Bar!contends!that!the!Court!of!Appeal!erred!in!concluding!that!under!common!law!principles,!there!is!a!presumption!of!public!access!to!any!record!maintained!by!a!public!entity!that!relates!in!some!way!to!the!public's!business.!***261!The!State!Bar!interprets!the!common!law!right!of!public!access!too!narrowly.!Historically!“!‘[a]t!common!law!every!person!was!entitled!to!the!inspection,!either!personally!or!by!his!agent,!of!public!records,!including!legislative,!executive,!and!judicial!records,!provided!he!had!an!interest!therein!such!as!to!enable!him!to!maintain!or!defend!an!action!for!which!the!documents!or!records!sought!could!furnish!evidence!or!necessary!information.’!”!(Craemer,'supra,!265!Cal.App.2d!at!p.!220,!fn.!3,!71!Cal.Rptr.!193,!quoting!State'v.'McGrath!(1937)!104!Mont.!490,!67!P.2d!838,!841.)!In!California,!the!right!of!public!access!was!codified!in!1872!in!statutes!that!did!not!*314!limit!the!right!to!those!seeking!access!for!the!purpose!of!litigation.!(See!Code!Civ.!Proc.,!former!§!1888![enacted!1872]N!former!Pol.!Code,!§!1032![enacted!1872].)5!**498!The!State!Bar!is!correct!that!under!early!California!law,!the!term!“!public!records”!was!generally!used!to!refer!to!the!official!records!of!public!entities.!Code!of!Civil!Procedure!former!section!1892!provided:!“Every!citizen!has!a!right!to!inspect!and!take!a!copy!of!any!public!writing!of!this!State,!except!as!otherwise!expressly!provided!by!statute.”!(Enacted!1872,!repealed!by!Stats.!1968,!ch.!1473,!§!25,!p.!2945.)!Public!writings!were!defined!in!the!1872!Code!of!Civil!Procedure!as!“[t]he!written!acts!or!records!of!the!acts!of!the!sovereign!authority,!of!official!bodies!and!tribunals,!and!of!public!officers,!legislative,!judicial,!and!executive”!and!“[p]ublic!records,!kept!in!this!State,!of!private!writings.”!(Code!Civ.!Proc.,!former!§!1888,!enacted!1872!and!repealed!by!Stats.!1968,!ch.!1473,!§!24,!p.!2945N!see!Craemer,'supra,!265!Cal.App.2d!at!p.!220,!71!Cal.Rptr.!193.)!The!case!law!recognized,!however,!that!the!right!of!public!access!was!not!limited!to!“public!records”!as!so!defined.!First,!relevant!statutory!language!contemplated!disclosure!of!some!“other!matters.”!(Former!Pol.!Code,!§!1032.)!Prior!to!the!passage!of!the!CPRA!in!1968,!both!former!Political!Code!section!1032!and!its!successor!statute,!Government!Code!section!1227!provided:!“The!public!records!and'other'matters!in!the!office!of!any!officer!are!at!all!times,!during!office!hours,!open!to!the!inspection!of!any!citizen!of!this!State.”!(Former!Pol.!Code,!§!1032,!repealed!by!Stats.!1951,!ch.!655,!§!37,!p.!1864N!Gov.!Code,!former!§!1227,!enacted!by!Stats.!1951,!ch.!655,!§!23,!p.!1851!and!repealed!by!Stats.!1968,!ch.!1473,!§!38,!p.!2945,!italics!addedN!see!ante,!165!Cal.Rptr.3d!at!p.!262,!314!P.3d!at!p.!499.)!The!term!“public!records,”!as!used!in!these!statutes,!was!interpreted!

to!mean!the!same!as!“public!writings,”!as!defined!in!Code!of!Civil!Procedure!former!section!1888.!(Craemer,'supra,!265!Cal.App.2d!at!p.!220,!71!Cal.Rptr.!193.)!As!the!quoted!language!shows,!however,!these!statutes!also!permitted!access!to!“other!matters”!in!government!offices.!Case!law!interpreted!the!term!“other!matters”!based!upon!fundamental!public!policy:!“The!‘other!matters'!referred!to!...!is!matter!which!is!‘public,’!and!in!which!the!whole!public!may!have!an!interest.”!(Whelan'v.'Superior'Court!(1896)!114!Cal.!548,!550,!46!P.!468![holding!that!written!instructions!to!a!sheriff!for!carrying!out!a!writ!of!execution!on!behalf!of!a!creditor,!although!possessed!by!a!public!officer,!were!not!subject!to!disclosure!because!the!sheriff!was!acting!as!an!agent!of!the!creditor!and!not!in!his!official!***262!*315!capacity].)!The!scope!of!disclosure!was!not!wellgdefined:!“There!is!no!precise!formula!by!which!it!can!be!determined!whether!a!writing!is!such!‘other!matter’N!it!depends!in!each!instance!upon!the!facts!of!the!particular!case.!It!is!obvious!that!not!every!piece!of!correspondence!or!written!statement!lodged!in!the!office!of!a!public!officer!partakes!of!such!a!public!interest!as!to!be!open!to!general!inspection.”!(City'Council'v.'Superior'Court!(1962)!204!Cal.App.2d!68,!75,!21!Cal.Rptr.!896.)!In!Coldwell'v.'Board'of'Public'Works!(1921)!187!Cal.!510,!519–520,!this!court!concluded!that!preliminary!plans!and!estimates!related!to!a!public!works!project!held!in!the!office!of!the!city!engineer!were!not!“public!records”!as!defined!in!Code!of!Civil!Procedure!former!section!1888,!because!they!had!not!yet!been!approvedN!nevertheless,!they!were!“other!matters”!to!which!the!public!had!a!right!of!access!under!former!Political!Code!section!1032.!The!public!policy!in!favor!of!access!to!matters!of!public!interest!informed!our!interpretation!of!this!statute.!These!plans!represented!steps!in!the!completion!of!a!large!public!project!that!was!being!undertaken!by!public!employees!at!public!expense.!“As!such!they!are!matters!which!affect!the!public,!and!in!which!the!public!has!an!interest,!if!that!interest!is!only!to!see!that!the!city!engineer!is!taking!steps!toward!the!completion!of![the!project].”!(Coldwell,'supra,!at!pp.!520–521,!202!P.!879.)!A!number!of!Attorney!General!opinions!addressing!the!right!of!public!access!under!**499!these!former!statutes!expressed!the!view!that!particular!documents!in!possession!of!government!agencies!were!not!subject!to!public!disclosure!because!they!were!neither!the!“written!acts!or!records!of!the!acts”!of!public!officials!or!bodies!nor!of!sufficient!public!interest!to!qualify!as!“!other!matters”!to!which!access!was!granted!under!section!1227!or!similarly!worded!predecessor!statutes.!(See,!e.g.,!31!Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.!103,!104!(1958)![applications!to!the!Real!Estate!Commissioner!for!various!licenses!are!not!public!records!because!the!

information!on!these!applications!“is!not!of!sufficient!interest!to!the!public”]N!18!Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.!231!(1951)![reports!on!county!hospitals!required!to!be!made!by!State!Department!of!Public!Health!are!subject!to!right!of!access,!but!investigative!reports,!data,!and!information!upon!which!the!report!itself!is!based!are!not]N!11!Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.!41,!45!(1948)![concluding!that!production!reports!submitted!by!mine!operators!to!the!Division!of!Mines!for!the!purpose!of!assembling!statistical!data!need!not!be!disclosed!because!there!is!no!public!interest!in!the!production!figures!of!an!individual!mine!operator,!but!noting!that!statutory!clarification!would!be!desirable!because!“the!common!law!rule!of!inspection!presents!a!nebulous!and!unsatisfactory!standard”].)!Courts!applying!these!former!statutes!recognized!exceptions!to!the!policy!in!favor!of!a!right!of!access!when!other!public!policies!favored!nondisclosure.!*316!They!recognized!that!“public!policy!demands!that!certain!communications!and!documents!shall!be!treated!as!confidential!and!therefore!are!not!open!to!indiscriminate!inspection,!notwithstanding!that!they!are!in!the!custody!of!a!public!officer!or!board!and!are!of!a!public!nature.”!(Runyon'v.'Board'etc.'of'Cal.!(1938)!26!Cal.App.2d!183,!184,!79!P.2d!101![holding!that!letters!and!communications!voluntarily!submitted!to!the!parole!board!in!connection!with!the!determination!of!prisoners'!applications!for!parole!are!confidential].)!In!Colnon'v.'Orr!(1886)!71!Cal.!43,!11!P.!814,!we!denied!a!citizen's!petition!to!inspect!a!letter!filed!with!a!state!insane!asylum!that!criticized!its!superintendent.!“It!is!not!every!written!charge!made!to!a!board!of!supervisors,!a!board!of!directors,!or!trustees!of!a!college!or!other!state!institution,!which,!upon!***263!being!filed!in!the!office!of!their!secretary!or!treasurer,!or!custodian!of!their!records,!becomes!thereby!a!public!record!to!which!any!citizen!may!have!access!at!pleasure.”!(Id.!at!p.!44,!11!P.!814.)!We!concluded!that!such!a!document!was!not!part!of!the!public!record.!(Id.!at!pp.!44–45,!11!P.!814.)!Thus,!prior!to!the!adoption!of!the!CPRA!in!1968,!case!law!applied!the!relevant!statutes!in!light!of!a!fundamental!policy!favoring!access!to!records!in!which!the!public!had!a!legitimate!interest.!Records!maintained!by!a!public!entity!were!subject!to!a!qualified!right!of!public!access!if!they!were!records!that!constituted!the!“written!acts!or!records!of!acts”!of!the!public!entity,!or!if!they!constituted!“other!matters”!of!sufficient!public!interest!to!justify!requiring!public!access,!taking!into!account!the!facts!of!the!particular!case,!unless!other!interests,!including!a!need!for!confidentiality,!weighed!in!favor!of!nondisclosure.!The!State!Bar!cites!Mushet'v.'Department'of'Pub.'Service!(1917)!35!Cal.App.!630,!634,!170!P.!653!(Mushet!),!as!support!for!its!argument!that!

only!records!that!officially!memorialize!or!record!government!actions!constitute!public!records!under!California!common!law.!As!we!explain,!however,!we!find!Mushet!consistent!with!the!authorities!discussed!above,!which!recognize!a!qualified!right!of!public!access!to!records!of!government!agencies!that!are!of!public!interest,!subject!to!countervailing!public!policy!considerations.!To!be!sure,!Mushet,'supra,!35!Cal.App.!at!page!634,!170!P.!653!did!recognize!that!“public!records,”!as!defined!in!the!statutes!of!the!time,!included!the!official!records!of!government!action.!Mushet,!however,!did!not!limit!the!right!of!access!to!documents!that!came!within!this!definition,!but!applied!a!more!expansive!common!law!rule!to!require!disclosure.!(Id.!at!pp.!636–639,!170!P.!653.)!Mushet!applied!the!public!access!right!to!books,!accounts,!and!other!records!possessed!by!the!city!explaining!items!of!expenditure,!and!anticipated!expenditures,!related!to!a!project!to!expand!the!infrastructure!of!power!generation!in!Los!Angeles.!(Id.!at!p.!634,!170!P.!653.)!These!documents!were!not!technically!“public!records”!within!the!meaning!**500!of!applicable!statutes!because,!under!the!law!in!effect!at!the!time,!the!city!was!acting!as!a!private!*317!utility!corporation!in!conducting!those!activities!and!therefore!the!records!at!issue!were!not!“!official.”!Nevertheless,!the!records!reflected!the!use!of!public!funds.!The!court!concluded!that!voters!and!taxpayers!had!“a!great!interest!in!the!proper!management!of!the!business!and!matters!pertaining!to!their!county,!and!therefore!are!entitled!to!know!whether!the!public!officials!whom!they!have!selected!to!represent!them!have!properly!used,!disbursed,!and!accounted!for!the!public!funds!which!under!the!law!have!been!confided!to!their!custody!and!administration.”!(Id.!at!p.!637,!170!P.!653.)!The!court!explained!that!“[t]he!rules!of!the!common!law!will!be!applied!to!those!cases!which!come!within!their!reason!and!equity,!even!when!such!cases!seem!to!be!outside!the!strict!letter!of!such!rules!as!they!are!ordinarily!stated....”!(Id.!at!p.!638,!170!P.!653.)6!***264!The!state!of!the!law!of!public!access!to!the!records!of!public!entities!prior!to!the!1968!adoption!of!the!CPRA!was!succinctly!summarized!in!an!opinion!of!the!California!Attorney!General!as!follows:!“The!phrase!‘public!records'!in!Political!Code!section!1032!was!limited!to!those!documents!meeting!the!definitions!of!‘public!writings'!expressed!in!Code!of!Civil!Procedure!sections!1888!and!1894.!To!balance!this!restricted!definition,!the!law!also!permitted!public!inspection!of!certain!‘other!matters'!in!the!office!of!a!public!officer!if!they!were!matters!which!were!‘public’!and!in!which!the!whole!public!might!have!an!interest.!This!‘other!matters'!area!was!also!subject!to!further!enlargement!by!resort!to!common!law!

principles.”!(53!Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.!136,!142!(1970).)!The!right!was!not!limited,!as!the!State!Bar!contends!it!should!be,!to!the!official!records!of!government!actions.!D.(Common(Law(Principles(as(Applied(to(Court(Records!The!State!Bar!contends!that!because!it!is!a!judicial!branch!entity,!and!because!it!acts!as!an!“administrative!arm”!of!this!court!in!connection!with!admissions,!these!general!common!law!principles!should!not!govern!it.!*318!Rather,!it!argues,!it!should!be!subject!to!only!the!common!law!rules!that!are!applicable!specifically!to!court!records.!Public!access!to!court!records,!the!State!Bar!contends,!is!limited!to!those!that!“accurately!and!officially!reflect[!]!the!work!of!the!court.”!(Copley'Press,'supra,!6!Cal.App.4th!at!p.!113,!7!Cal.Rptr.2d!841![defining!a!judicial!record!as!one!that!“accurately!and!officially!reflects!the!work!of!the!court,!such!as!its!orders!and!judgments,!its!scheduling!and!administration!of!cases,!its!assignment!of!judicial!officers!and!administrators”].)!Thus,!it!contends,!public!access!to!its!records!under!the!common!law!should!be!limited!to!those!that!accurately!and!officially!reflect!the!work!of!the!State!Bar.!As!explained!below,!the!general!principles!regarding!public!access!to!the!records!of!public!entities!established!in!the!statutes!and!case!law!discussed!above!continue!to!apply!in!the!context!of!court!records.!Consequently,!the!right!is!not!limited!in!the!manner!proposed!by!the!State!Bar.!3!When!the!CPRA!was!adopted!in!1968,!Code!of!Civil!Procedure!sections!1888!and!1892!and!Government!Code!section!1227,!discussed!above,!which!had!codified!the!general!right!of!access!to!public!records,!were!repealed.!**501!(Stats.!1968,!ch.!1473,!§§!24–25,!38,!p.!2945.)!Nevertheless,!both!statute!and!case!law!continued!to!recognize!this!right!of!access.!The!Legislature!declared!that!“access!to!information!concerning!the!conduct!of!the!people's!business!is!a!fundamental!and!necessary!right!of!every!citizen!of!this!state.”!(Gov.!Code,!§!6250,!enacted!by!Stats.!1968,!ch.!1473,!§!39,!p.!2945.)!The!courts!were!made!exempt!from!most!provisions!of!the!CPRA,!but!the!Legislature!explicitly!preserved!existing!law!regarding!“the!status!of!judicial!records!as!it!existed!immediately!prior!to!the!effective!date!of!this!section.”!(Gov.!Code,!§!6260,!enacted!by!***265!Stats.!1968,!ch.!1473,!§!39,!p.!2945.)!The!common!law!right!of!access!continued!to!be!applied!and!to!develop!in!cases!addressing!court!records,!which!recognized!that!“[t]o!prevent!secrecy!in!public!affairs!public!policy!makes!public!records!and!documents!available!for!public!inspection!by!newsmen!and!members!of!the!general!public!alike.”!(Estate'of'Hearst!

(1977)!67!Cal.App.3d!777,!782,!136!Cal.Rptr.!821.)!“Absent!strong!countervailing!reasons,!the!public!has!a!legitimate!interest!and!right!of!general!access!to!court!records....”!(Id.!at!p.!784,!136!Cal.Rptr.!821.)!4!The!Court!of!Appeal!in!Copley'Press,'supra,!6!Cal.App.4th!at!pages!113–115,!7!Cal.Rptr.2d!841,!aptly!summarized!the!principles!governing!public!access!to!court!records.!It!identified!two!categories!of!records!typically!used!in!the!courts.!The!first!included!“documentation!which!accurately!and!officially!reflects!the!work!of!the!court,!such!as!its!orders!and!judgments,!its!scheduling!and!administration!of!cases,!its!assignment!of!judicial!officers!and!administrators[,]!...!the!official!court!minutes,!all!its!written!orders!and!dispositions,!the!official!reports!of!oral!proceedings,!...!the!master!calendar![,]!...![and]!the!various!documents!filed!in!or!received!by!the!court!...!and!the!evidence!admitted!in!court!proceedings.”!(Id.!at!p.!113,!7!Cal.Rptr.2d!841.)!These!documents!are!“!‘judicial!record[s]’!”!that!“represent!and!reflect!the!official!work!of!the!court,!in!*319!which!the!public!and!press!have!a!justifiable!interest.”!(Ibid.)!They!are!presumptively!accessible!to!the!public.7!The!second!category!of!records!identified!in!Copley'Press!includes!informal!and!preliminary!writings!used!by!the!courts,!such!as!rough!drafts,!informal!notes,!memoranda,!and!other!preliminary!writings.!(Copley'Press,'supra,!6!Cal.App.4th!at!p.!114,!7!Cal.Rptr.2d!841.)!Although!such!writings!are!used!by!judges!in!the!course!of!judicial!work,!they!are!not!subject!to!the!right!of!public!access.!(Ibid.O!see!NBC'Subsidiary,'supra,!20!Cal.4th!at!p.!1212,!fn.!29,!86!Cal.Rptr.2d!778,!980!P.2d!337.)!The!reason!is!that!public!access!to!such!documents!is!not!generally!in!the!public!interest!because!they!are!“tentative,!often!wrong,!sometimes!misleading!...!they!do!not!speak!for!the!court!and!do!not!constitute!court!action.”!(Copley'Press,'supra,!at!p.!114,!7!Cal.Rptr.2d!841.)!Furthermore,!access!to!such!preliminary!writings!“would!severely!hamper!the!users!of!the!materials”!because!their!purpose!is!to!“extract!raw!and!immature!thoughts!from!the!brain!to!paper,!so!they!can!be!refined!and!corrected.”!(Ibid.)!Knowing!that!such!materials!could!be!exposed!to!the!public!eye!would!inhibit!their!creation.!Copley'Press!recognized,!however,!that!not!every!document!used!and!maintained!by!courts!clearly!falls!into!one!of!these!two!categories.!It!identified!a!third!category!of!records!that!“are!on!the!margin”!of!***266!these!two!categories.!(!**502!Copley'Press,'supra,!6!Cal.App.4th!at!p.!115,!7!Cal.Rptr.2d!841.)!In!Copley'Press,!members!of!the!press!sought!access!to!the!minute!books!of!the!clerks!serving!six!superior!court!judges,!in!order!to!investigate!whether!gifts!judges!reported!from!certain!attorneys!may!have!influenced!judicial!conduct.!The!minute!books!are!informal!notes!kept!

by!the!clerks!as!a!precursor!to!the!creation!of!the!formal!minutes!of!the!court.!The!appellate!court!concluded!that!the!clerk's!rough!minutes!fall!into!this!marginal!category.!They!are!not!official!records!of!the!court!and!do!not!constitute!court!action,!but!“[o]n!the!other!hand,!they!do!not!partake!of!the!discretionary!and!incomplete!content!that!characterizes!the!judge's!bench!notes!or!the!first!drafts!of!various!court!documents.”!(Ibid.)!The!court!concluded!that!the!clerk's!rough!minutes!should!be!disclosed!to!the!public.!The!court!noted!that!they!are!kept!regularly!by!all!clerks,!they!reflect!ministerial!actions!by!the!clerk,!and!“!the!clerk's!minute!book!presumptively!*320!contains!only!accurate,!descriptive!and!nongdiscretionary!information.”!(Ibid.)!Significantly,!the!court!pointed!out!that!the!minute!book!“is!the!one!repository!of!easy!access!which!provides!a!continuous!chronology!of!each!court's!daily!activities.”!Thus,!in!deciding!whether!documents!that!do!not!clearly!fall!into!the!category!of!public!court!records!are!subject!to!a!right!of!access,!Copley'Press!focused!on!the!usefulness!of!the!records!and!thereby!on!the!public's!interest!in!access!to!those!records.!Pantos'v.'City'and'County'of'San'Francisco!(1984)!151!Cal.App.3d!258,!198!Cal.Rptr.!489!(Pantos!),!applied!a!similar!approach.!First,!Pantos!held!that!a!court's!master!jury!list!of!potential!jurors!qualified!for!service!was!a!judicial!record!that!must!be!disclosed!to!the!public.!(Id.!at!pp.!262–263,!198!Cal.Rptr.!489.)!The!master!list!constituted!an!official!list!prepared!by!the!jury!commissioner!that!had!historically!been!treated!as!a!public!document,!and!the!Court!of!Appeal!found!no!compelling!reason!for!nondisclosure.!(Id.!at!p.!263,!198!Cal.Rptr.!489.)!Second,!Pantos!held!that!questionnaires!used!by!the!jury!commissioner!to!determine!whether!citizens!were!qualified!for!jury!service!did!not!have!to!be!disclosed.!Although!the!questionnaires!were!used!and!maintained!by!the!court,!they!had!not!historically!been!disclosed!to!the!public.!The!plaintiff!in!Pantos!argued!that!access!to!the!questionnaires!would!enhance!the!selection!of!a!fair!jury,!but!the!court!concluded!that!voir!dire!questioning!was!sufficient!for!that!purpose.!(Id.!at!pp.!263–265,!198!Cal.Rptr.!489.)!Furthermore,!the!questionnaire!stated!that!the!prospective!juror!is!compelled!by!law!to!provide!the!information!and!that!the!questionnaire!is!confidential!and!will!not!be!made!public.!(Id.!at!p.!264,!198!Cal.Rptr.!489.)!“To!disclose!this!information!under!these!conditions!may!negatively!impact!on!the!prospective!juror's!willingness!to!serve!and!thus!interfere!with!efficient!court!administration....!Public!interest!in!withholding!such!questionnaires!outweighs!the!public's!interest!in!disclosure.”!(Id.!at!pp.!264–265,!198!Cal.Rptr.!489.)!The!approach!to!court!records!set!forth!in!Copley'Press!and!applied!in!Pantos!is!consistent!with!the!general!statutory!and!common!law!principles!

regarding!the!right!of!public!access!as!applied!in!California!before!the!adoption!of!the!CPRA.!As!discussed!above,!the!right!applied!to!the!“!‘!“written!acts!or!records!of!the!acts”!’!”!of!government!officials!and!entities!and!also!to!“other!matters”!that!were!of!sufficient!interest!to!the!public!to!warrant!disclosure,!subject!to!countervailing!public!interests.!(Coldwell'v.'Board'of'Public'Works,'supra,!187!Cal.!at!p.!518,!202!P.!879N!accord,!***267!City'Council'v.'Superior'Court,'supra,!204!Cal.App.2d!at!p.!73,!21!Cal.Rptr.!896N!see!Mushet,'supra,!35!Cal.App.!at!p.!638,!170!P.!653![“The!rules!of!the!common!law!will!be!applied!to!those!cases!which!come!within!their!reason!and!equity,!even!when!such!cases!seem!to!be!outside!the!strict!letter!of!such!rules!as!they!are!ordinarily!stated....”].)!The!State!Bar!claims!support!in!Washington'Legal'Foundation'v.'United'States'Sentencing'Comm'n!(D.C.Cir.1996)!89!F.3d!897!*321!(Washington'Legal'Foundation!)!for!its!contention!that!the!right!of!public!access!to!judicial!branch!records!is!limited!to!those!that!officially!and!accurately!reflect!the!work!of!the!public!agency.!The!court!in!Washington'Legal'Foundation!applied!the!common!law!right!of!access!to!a!judicial!branch!entity!other!than!a!court—an!advisory!committee!to!**503!the!United!States!Sentencing!Commission.!The!petitioner!in!Washington'Legal'Foundation,'supra,!89!F.3d!at!page!899!sought!“!‘internal!documents!and!memoranda’!”!relied!upon!by!an!advisory!group!in!formulating!its!final!public!recommendations!to!the!United!States!Sentencing!Commission.!The!federal!appellate!court!declared!that!under!federal!common!law,!a!public!record!was!“a!government!document!created!and!kept!for!the!purpose!of!memorializing!or!recording!an!official!action,!decision,!statement,!or!other!matter!of!legal!significance,!broadly!conceived.”!(Id.!at!p.!905.)!It!concluded!that!the!public!has!a!presumptive!right!of!access!to!such!records,!subject!to!a!balancing!of!public!and!private!interests.!(Ibid.)!The!court!viewed!this!definition!as!allowing!adequate!public!oversight!of!government!agencies!while!avoiding!“the!necessity!for!judicial!application!of!the!secondgstep!balancing!test!to!documents!that!are!preliminary,!advisory,!or!...!do!not!eventuate!in!any!official!action!or!decision!being!taken.”!(Ibid.)!The!court!clarified!that!this!definition!would!include!records!of!governmental!expenditures,!records!of!real!estate!transactions,!and!a!list!of!tax!abatements!passed!by!a!local!government.!(Washington'Legal'Foundation,'supra,!89!F.3d!at!p.!905.)!In!contrast,!this!definition!“would!not!encompass!the!preliminary!materials!upon!which!an!official!relied!in!making!a!decision!or!other!writings!incidental!to!the!decision!itself—for!example,!the!report!of!a!blood!test!provided!in!support!of!an!application!for!a!marriage!license,!the!job!application!of!a!wouldgbe!government!employee,!a!government!

auditor's!preliminary!notes!used!in!the!preparation!of!an!official!report,!or!a!cover!memorandum!circulated!with!a!copy!of!an!official!report!or!study.”!(Id.!at!pp.!905–906.)!The!court!held!that!the!advisory!committee!records!sought!by!the!petitioner!were!not!public!records!because!they!were!either!“!‘pregdecisional’!”!or!incidental!to!the!official!actions,!decisions,!and!statements!of!that!commission.!(Id.!at!p.!906.)!Consequently,!there!was!no!presumptive!right!of!public!access!and!the!court!was!not!required!to!balance!competing!interests.!Washington'Legal'Foundation's!categories!of!records!that!must!be!disclosed!and!those!that!need!not!be!disclosed!are!essentially!the!same!two!categories!recognized!in!Copley'Press,!and!its!holding!is!consistent!with!Copley'Press!because!the!internal!documents!and!memoranda!of!an!advisory!committee!would!fall!into!the!category!of!records!that!are!not!disclosable!under!Copley'Press.!Unlike!Copley'Press,!however,!the!court!in!Washington'Legal'Foundation!did!not!consider!whether!records!might!exist!that!did!not!clearly!fall!into!either!of!these!categories—the!“marginal”!category!discussed!*322!in!Copley'Press.!It!had!no!need!to!do!so,!because!the!documents!at!issue!clearly!fell!into!the!category!that!need!not!be!disclosed.!To!the!extent!Washington'Legal!implicitly!rejected!the!existence!of!such!a!category,!and!limited!the!right!of!public!access!to!***268!documents!that!memorialize!or!record!government!actions,!it!is!not!consistent!with!the!California!case!law!on!the!right!of!public!access.!5!The!State!Bar!suggests!that!if!the!common!law!right!of!access!is!not!limited!in!the!manner!it!proposes,!it!would!create!a!level!of!access!to!judicial!branch!records!that!is!equivalent!to!the!level!of!access!provided!in!the!CPRA!and!thereby!effectively!eliminate!the!CPRA's!exemption!for!the!judicial!branch.!The!CPRA!applies!to!“any!writing!containing!information!relating!to!the!conduct!of!the!public's!business!prepared,!owned,!used,!or!retained!by!any!state!or!local!agency!regardless!of!physical!form!or!characteristics,”!(Gov.Code,!§!6252,!subd.!(e)),!unless!a!specific!statutory!exemption!applies!(Gov.Code,!§!6255,!subd.!(a)N!see!Gov.Code,!§§!6254!et!seq.,!6276!et!seq.).8!“This!definition!is!intended!to!cover!every!conceivable!kind!of!record!that!is!involved!in!the!governmental!process....!Only!purely!personal!information!**504!unrelated!to!‘the!conduct!of!the!public's!business'!could!be!considered!exempt!from!this!definition....”!(Assem.!Statewide!Information!Policy!Com.,!Final!Rep.!(Mar.!1970)!1!Assem.!J.!(1970!Reg.!Sess.)!appen.!p.!9N!accord,!Commission'on'Peace'Officer'Standards'&'Training'v.'Superior'Court!(2007)!42!Cal.4th!278,!288,!fn.!3,!64!Cal.Rptr.3d!661,!165!P.3d!462.)!

The!State!Bar!is!correct!that,!unlike!the!CPRA,!the!common!law!does!not!recognize!a!presumptive!right!of!public!access!to!every!record!in!possession!of!a!government!agency!that!is!in!any!way!related!to!the!public's!affairs.!Copley'Press,'supra,!6!Cal.App.4th!at!page!113,!7!Cal.Rptr.2d!841,!explicitly!rejected!the!argument!that!“all!writings!created!within!the!court!premises!by!court!personnel!in!connection!with!court!business”!were!public!records!under!California!common!law.!It!noted!that!if!that!definition!applied,!“access!to!court!documents!would!be!virtually!the!same!as!access!to!any!other!governmental!documents,”!as!prescribed!in!the!CPRA.!(Ibid.O!see!City'Council'v.'Superior'Court,'supra,!204!Cal.App.2d!at!p.!73,!21!Cal.Rptr.!896![“the!mere!fact!that!a!writing!is!in!the!custody!of!a!public!agency!does!not!make!it!a!public!record”].)!6!We!agree!with!the!Copley'Press!court!that!the!common!law!rule—although!not!limited!in!the!manner!proposed!by!the!State!Bar—does!differ!*323!from!the!CPRA.!The!CPRA!establishes!a!presumptive!right!of!access!to!any!record!created!or!maintained!by!a!public!agency!that!relates!in!any!way!to!the!business!of!the!public!agency,!and!the!record!must!be!disclosed!unless!a!statutory!exception!is!shown.!Under!the!common!law,!on!the!other!hand,!no!such!presumption!exists.!Although!the!official!records!of!government!actions!have!historically!been!treated!as!subject!to!public!access!and!are!readily!categorized!as!“public!records,”!for!other!matters!or!types!of!records!a!determination!must!be!made!concerning!whether!the!records!at!issue!should!be!treated!as!public,!taking!into!account!the!public's!interest!in!disclosure!as!well!as!the!competing!interests!involved.!A!report!to!a!legislative!committee!considering!a!predecessor!bill!to!the!bill!that!was!later!adopted!as!the!CPRA!identifies!this!difference!between!the!way!public!records!***269!previously!were!defined!and!the!way!they!would!be!defined!under!the!proposed!legislation.!(Assem.!Com.!on!Government!Organization,!Staff!Rep.,!Cal.'s!Public!Records!Law!and!Proposed!Revision,!prepared!for!hearing!Jan.!6!and!7,!1966!on!Assem.!Bill!No.!3015!(1966!Reg.!Sess.).)!The!pending!bill,!Assembly!Bill!No.!3015!(1966!Reg.!Sess.),!contained!a!definition!of!public!records!similar!to!the!one!contained!in!the!current!version!of!the!CPRA.!The!report!states!that!the!definition!of!public!records!under!existing!law!is!“broad!and!provides!little!guidance!in!determining!whether!or!not!a!specific!document!is!a!public!record.!Generally,!the!courts!have!taken!a!restrictive!view!in!applying!these!sections.![¶]!In!contrast,!AB!3015!begins!by!making!every!document!a!public!record.!The!only!exceptions!are!those!which!are!specifically!recognized!by!the!Legislature!(either!in!the!exemptions!outlined!in!the!bill!

or!by!specific!statute).!The!significance!of!this!change!is!twofold:!(1)!the!burden!for!determining!what!is!a!public!record!is!shiftedN!(2)!it!limits!the!authority!of!administrators!to!withhold!records!unless!there!is!an!expressed!statutory!right!to!do!so.”!(Assem.!Com.!on!Government!Organization,!Staff!Rep.,!UPRA,'AT'P.'6.)!7!In!light!of!the!differences!between!the!common!law!approach!to!public!records!and!the!CPRA's!approach,!we!see!no!conflict!between!the!CPRA's!exemption!of!judicial!branch!records!and!the!recognition!that!a!common!law!right!of!access!continues!to!exist!in!records!of!those!public!entities!not!governed!by!the!CPRA!in!which!there!is!a!legitimate!public!interest,!if!that!interest!is!not!outweighed!by!other!interests.!E.(Application(of(Common(Law(Principles(to(the(Admissions(Database!

1.'Public'interest'in'the'admissions'database!8!Applying!the!principles!discussed!above,!the!admissions!database!falls!into!the!“marginal”!third!category!of!records!identified!in!Copley'Press.!The!*324!admissions!database!does!not!constitute!an!official!record!of!the!State!Bar's!actions!and!has!not!historically!been!treated!as!a!public!record.!On!the!other!hand,!the!admissions!database!does!not!**505!fall!into!the!category!of!preliminary,!predecisional!materials!whose!disclosure!could!undermine!the!purposes!for!which!they!were!created!and!which!could!be!misleading!or!inaccurate.!The!admissions!database!could!be!characterized!as!“!preliminary”!in!that!it!constitutes!the!rough!data!upon!which!the!bar's!published!statistical!reports!and!other!studies!are!based.!Unlike!a!rough!draft!or!internal!memo,!however,!we!have!no!reason!to!believe!that!it!is!inaccurate!or!misleading,!or!that!its!disclosure!would!interfere!with!the!State!Bar's!use!of!it!for!its!own!purposes.!9!The!threshold!consideration!in!determining!whether!these!records!are!subject!to!public!disclosure!is!the!public!interest!that!would!be!served!by!disclosure.!In!making!that!determination,!the!particular!motive!of!the!party!seeking!the!information!is!not!the!relevant!interest.!(Connell'v.'Superior'Court!(1997)!56!Cal.App.4th!601,!616,!65!Cal.Rptr.2d!738![applying!exemption!to!CPRA!for!cases!in!which!public!interest!in!disclosure!is!outweighed!by!other!interests]N!see!Department'of'Defense'v.'FLRA!(1994)!510!U.S.!487,!495–496,!114!S.Ct.!1006,!127!L.Ed.2d!325![applying!exemption!to!Freedom!of!Information!Act!applicable!to!cases!in!which!public!interest!in!disclosure!is!outweighed!by!other!interests].)!Rather,!we!

focus!on!“whether!disclosure!would!contribute!significantly!to!public!understanding!of!government!activities.”!(City'of'San'Jose'v.'Superior'Court!(1999)!74!Cal.App.4th!1008,!1018,!88!Cal.Rptr.2d!552N!accord,!Department'of'Defense'v.'Federal'Labor'Relations'Authority,'***270'supra,!at!pp.!495–496,!114!S.Ct.!1006.)!Thus,!although!plaintiff!Sander's!motive!in!seeking!the!information!is!to!facilitate!his!research!regarding!law!school!admissions!practices,!we!focus!on!the!interest!of!the!general!public!in!the!activities!of!the!State!Bar.!The!public!does!have!a!legitimate!interest!in!the!activities!of!the!State!Bar!in!administering!the!bar!exam!and!the!admissions!process.!In!particular,!it!seems!beyond!dispute!that!the!public!has!a!legitimate!interest!in!whether!different!groups!of!applicants,!based!on!race,!sex!or!ethnicity,!perform!differently!on!the!bar!examination!and!whether!any!disparities!in!performance!are!the!result!of!the!admissions!process!or!of!other!factors.!Indeed,!the!State!Bar!uses!the!database!to!prepare!a!statistical!analysis!of!the!bar!exam!that!reports!the!bar!passage!rates!for!various!categories!of!applicants.!Public!access!to!the!admissions!database!used!by!the!State!Bar!to!evaluate!its!admissions!process!would!allow!the!public!to!independently!ascertain!and!evaluate!that!process.!Therefore,!the!public's!interest!in!the!information!in!the!database!would!contribute!to!the!public's!understanding!of!the!State!Bar's!*325!admissions!activities,!and!is!sufficient!to!warrant!further!consideration!of!whether!any!countervailing!consideration!weighs!against!public!access.!

2.'Promise'of'confidentiality!10!11!The!State!Bar!asserts!that,!notwithstanding!any!public!interest!in!the!admissions!database,!it!is!not!subject!to!public!disclosure!because!the!information!contained!in!it!was!obtained!from!applicants!under!a!promise!that!it!would!remain!confidential.!Under!longstanding!common!law!and!statutory!principles,!information!obtained!through!a!promise!of!confidentiality!is!not!subject!to!the!right!of!public!access!when!the!public!interest!would!be!furthered!by!maintaining!confidentiality.!(See!Runyon'v.'Board'etc.'of'Cal.,'supra,!26!Cal.App.2d!at!p.!185,!79!P.2d!101![“in!order!to!impartially!and!intelligently!discharge!the!functions!of!the!state!board!of!prison!terms!and!paroles!it!is!essential!to!secure!all!possible!information!bearing!upon!applicants!for!paroleN!and!necessarily!much!of!the!information!thus!obtained!can!be!had!only!upon!the!understanding!that!the!persons!furnishing!the!same!will!be!protected!and!that!the!information!will!be!treated!as!confidential”]N!Chronicle'Pub.'Co.'v.'Superior'Court,'supra,!54!

Cal.2d!548,!7!Cal.Rptr.!109,!354!P.2d!637![complaints!to!State!Bar!not!resulting!in!disciplinary!action!were!privileged,!where!confidentiality!furthered!State!Bar's!interest!in!encouraging!citizens!to!provide!information!and!attorneys'!interests!in!avoiding!publication!of!unfounded!complaints!weighed!against!disclosure]N!Pantos,'supra,!151!Cal.App.3d!at!pp.!264–265,!198!Cal.Rptr.!489![access!to!the!questionnaires!used!by!a!jury!commissioner!to!determine!the!qualifications!of!potential!jurors!was!denied,!in!part,!because!jurors!were!promised!that!their!responses!**506!would!be!confidential].)!This!principle!is!currently!reflected!in!Evidence!Code!section!1040,!which!provides!a!privilege!to!a!public!entity!to!refuse!to!disclose!information!acquired!in!confidence!if!“there!is!a!necessity!for!preserving!the!confidentiality!of!the!information!that!outweighs!the!necessity!for!disclosure.”!(Evid.Code,!§!1040,!subd.!(b)(2).)!As!we!have!alluded!to!earlier,!however,!this!principle!has!not!prevented!public!access!to!otherwise!confidential,!private!information!in!the!possession!of!a!public!entity!that!is!not!linked!to!the!individual!to!which!it!pertains.!(See,!e.g.,!City'&'County'of'S.F.'v.'Superior'Court!(1951)!38!Cal.2d!156,!238!P.2d!581![names!of!private!employers!who!provided!specific!wage!information!to!city!civil!service!commission!***271!for!purpose!of!determining!prevailing!wage!rates!were!confidential,!where!information!could!not!be!obtained!without!promise!of!confidentiality!and!lists!of!wage!rates!obtained!from!employers!was!available!to!public!in!form!that!did!not!identify!which!employer!submitted!which!wage!list]N!Franchise'Tax'Board'v.'Superior'Court!(1950)!36!Cal.2d!538,!543,!225!P.2d!905![banks!seeking!right!to!inspect!tax!returns!of!nonfinancial!corporations!considered!by!Franchise!Tax!Board!in!fixing!the!tax!*326!rate!for!financial!corporations!were!supplied!with!“every!item!of!information!requested!by!them!...!with!the!exception!of!the!individual!taxpayers'!identity”]N!see!also!Zamudio'v.'Superior'Court!(1998)!64!Cal.App.4th!24,!74!Cal.Rptr.2d!765![requiring!release!of!juror!questionnaires!with!personal!identifying!information!redacted].)!Because!plaintiffs!do!not!seek!the!information!in!a!manner!that!would!reveal!the!identities!of!individual!applicants,!the!State!Bar's!promises!of!confidentiality!do!not!necessarily!preclude!public!access!to!the!database.!Similarly,!we!cannot!hold!as!a!matter!of!law!that!bar!applicants'!constitutional!rights!of!privacy!preclude!disclosure!of!the!information!in!the!database!even!in!a!deidentified!form.!(See!Cal.!Const.,!art.!I,!§!1.)!The!State!Bar!cites!this!court's!statement!in!White'v.'Davis!(1975)!13!Cal.3d!757,!775,!120!Cal.Rptr.!94,!533!P.2d!222,!that!the!constitutional!right!to!privacy!is!aimed!at,!among!other!things,!“the!improper!use!of!information!

properly!obtained!for!a!specific!purpose,!for!example,!the!use!of!it!for!another!purpose!or!the!disclosure!of!it!to!some!third!party.”!The!cases!cited!by!the!State!Bar!that!apply!this!principle,!however,!involve!disclosure!of!information!about!a!named!individual.!(See!Porten'v.'University'of'San'Francisco!(1976)!64!Cal.App.3d!825,!830,!134!Cal.Rptr.!839![complaint!alleging!that!a!university!disclosed!grades!the!plaintiff!had!earned!at!another!university!despite!assurances!that!the!grades!would!be!used!only!for!purposes!of!evaluating!his!application!for!admission!stated!a!claim!for!violation!of!the!right!of!privacy]N!Urbaniak'v.'Newton!(1991)!226!Cal.App.3d!1128,!1138,!277!Cal.Rptr.!354![complaint!alleging!that!doctor!disclosed!plaintiff's!HIV!status!stated!cause!of!action!for!invasion!of!privacy].)!The!State!Bar's!argument!that!disclosure!of!the!requested!data!would!violate!applicants'!privacy!even!if!it!cannot!be!connected!to!them!as!individuals!is!not!supported!by!authority.!The!parties!disagree!concerning!whether!the!information!at!issue!can!be!provided!in!a!form!that!does!not!breach!the!State!Bar's!promises!of!confidentiality.!The!State!Bar!contends!that!“the!commonly!held!assumption!that!any!data!can!be!successfully![deidentified]!as!suggested!by![plaintiffs],!so!that!it!can!be!made!available!to!the!public!without!risk!that!individual!people's!information!be!revealed,!has!proved!to!be!false.”!Plaintiffs!counter!that!“[d]isclosure!of!degidentified!information!regarding!individuals!obtained!from!government!databases!is!commonplace....!The!routine!release!of!such!data!refutes!the!claim!that!such!information!cannot!be!disclosed!without!undue!risk!of!‘regidentification’!of!those!individuals.”!This!issue!involves!disputed!questions!of!fact!that!we!are!not!currently!in!a!position!to!decide.!By!the!parties'!stipulation,!litigation!of!this!issue!was!reserved!for!the!second!phase!of!trial!and!may!be!decided!in!the!trial!court!upon!remand.!*327!F.(Form(in(Which(the(Data(Is(Kept!The!State!Bar!contends,!as!it!did!in!the!trial!court,!that!in!order!to!comply!with!Plaintiffs'!request!without!infringing!bar!applicants'!privacy!interests!it!would!be!required!**507!not!only!to!redact!personal!information!but!also!to!create!new!categories!of!***272!information!by!“clustering”!categories!of!data—a!measure!proposed!by!plaintiffs!to!make!it!more!difficult!to!reidentify!individuals.!The!State!Bar!concedes!that!if!the!admissions!database!is!subject!to!the!right!of!access!it!may!be!required!to!redact!applicants'!names,!but!contends!that!making!the!changes!to!the!admissions!database!necessary!to!protect!applicants'!privacy!would!constitute!the!creation!of!a!“new”!record!and!that!creation!of!a!new!record!is!not!required.!(See,!e.g.,!NLRB'v.'Sears,'Roebuck'&'Co.!(1975)!421!U.S.!132,!162,!95!S.Ct.!1504,!

44!L.Ed.2d!29![federal!Freedom!of!Information!Act!does!not!require!agency!to!create!documentsN!it!requires!only!“disclosure!of!certain!documents!which!the!law!requires!the!agency!to!prepare!or!which!the!agency!has!decided!for!its!own!reasons!to!create”]N!Center'for'Public'Integrity'v.'Federal'Communications'Comm'n!(D.D.C.2007)!505!F.Supp.2d!106,!114![producing!data!in!the!form!requested!would!amount!to!creation!of!a!new!record,!which!is!not!required!by!Freedom!of!Information!Act].)!We!agree!with!the!trial!court!that!in!the!context!of!electronic!records,!and!in!particular!electronic!databases,!to!resolve!this!issue!would!require!consideration!of!the!complexity!of!the!tasks!required!to!produce!the!data!in!the!form!requestedN!consequently,!it!would!be!premature!for!us!to!attempt!to!resolve!this!issue.!The!parties!have!not!yet!litigated!whether!and!how!applicants'!privacy!interests!could!be!protected!if!public!access!to!the!database!were!permitted.!Therefore,!we!do!not!yet!know!what!modifications!would!be!necessary!to!protect!these!countervailing!interests.!Furthermore,!by!stipulation,!the!parties!reserved!for!the!second!phase!of!trial!the!question!whether!disclosure!would!impose!an!undue!burden!on!the!State!Bar.!Plaintiffs!have!made!clear!that!they!would!accept!the!data!in!its!current!form,!without!any!modification!other!than!the!redaction!of!applicants'!names.!They!have!proposed!additional!modifications!to!the!data,!including!the!“clustering”!of!data,!in!order!to!satisfy!the!State!Bar's!concerns!about!bar!applicants'!privacy.!In!light!of!our!holding!recognizing!the!public's!interest!in!the!admissions!database,!the!State!Bar!may!choose!to!implement!these!proposals!or!may!propose!other!measures!that!will!satisfy!the!public's!right!of!access!while!protecting!applicants'!privacy.!If!not,!it!will!be!necessary!for!the!trial!court!to!resolve!whether!and!how!a!record!that!is!responsive!to!plaintiffs'!requests!may!be!produced!without!identifying!individual!applicants!or!otherwise!unduly!burdening!any!legitimate!competing!interests.!

*328!IV.(CONCLUSION!The!judgment!of!the!Court!of!Appeal!is!affirmed.!That!court!is!directed!to!remand!this!case!to!the!trial!court!for!further!proceedings!consistent!with!

this!opinion.!WE!CONCUR:!KENNARD,!BAXTER,!WERDEGAR,!CHIN,!CORRIGAN,!and!LIU,!JJ.!